All Episodes
Previous Next
May 15, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
May 15, 2006, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
They say that he was um a Catalan C-A-T-A-L-A and Catalan Caitlin with nobleman who hid his true identity, or he was the illegitimate son of a Majorcan prince, might have even been a Jew who spent his life masking his true identity.
Well, that no, no, I'm sorry, folks, you you interrupted uh staff conversation.
LA Times here, big story debating whether Columbus was really Italian.
I thought that I thought the debate was whether uh Columbus was gay.
Greetings, my friends, welcome, and America's anchor man is ensconced.
Uh behind the golden EIB microphone, ready for broadcast excellence.
Uh we're here at 800-282-2882, and the email address rush at EIB net.com.
We got a lot to do today.
Immigration, President has a speech tonight.
I must tell you I have my concerns about this.
I will share those with you in due course.
Just saw this, though.
The um uh Texas Department of Transportation has proposed a speed limit of eighty miles per hour on uh interstates in West Texas.
I've been waiting for people to propose, we you know, slow down to 55 again because of all the uh high prices and shortages or contrived shortages.
Nope, apparently uh going the other way.
Speed up to 80, it's been proposed.
Uh in West Texas Interstate, Senator Clinton, you remember last week, folks?
Remember last week told you that Hillary Clinton said that work was a four-letter word to uh uh today's young generation?
And I said it is.
If you spell it out, W O R K, there are four letters in the word.
Well, she has now apologized for that.
Um, you know, she said these say these kids today.
I mean, expect too much.
They expect start out fifty, seventy-five thousand dollars a year.
She forgot that Hillary started, or what's your name?
Chelsea started at a hundred grand in uh in her first job.
So we'll have details of that.
Also, uh from the lighthearted stack, uh, I don't know how they know this.
It must be the NSA spy program, but uh they have figured out out there that uh uh only 48 million people are I should say 48 million people, not only, 48 million people are refusing to use their seatbelts.
Now, how do they know this without spying?
How in the world do they possibly know this without a poll?
How can they possibly know this?
They also know who you are.
Now you know who you are if you're not buckling up, but they also know who you are.
They are young men who live in rural areas and drive pickups.
The government says.
Well, can I translate that for you?
These are a bunch of hayseed hick Bible thumpin' evangelicals with guns in the back of the uh the pickup's back window and listening to this program on the radio, and they probably have a Confederate flag decal, uh at least one of them on the on the bumper.
And they're going 80 miles an hour and they're not in Texas.
And uh, and then they're they're they're they're 48 million of them.
All right.
Okay.
Um the uh the the president tonight, eight o'clock, will make a uh speech on border security.
Uh and if he's not firm about this, if if this is if this is just lip service to try to tide people over for a while, it's gonna come back and and uh and and boom-erang.
And the reason I have these concerns, folks, uh uh is because I don't like the pre-speech leaks.
You know, they always leak the stuff that's gonna be said in the State of the Union address or any other prime time speech, and I you know, I I hope I'm wrong here, but uh temporary National Guard until we build up the border patrol.
Let me tell you the problem with that.
Um the National Guard is not the uh is not the problem.
The fact is uh that when you when you if if these leaks are accurate, we're gonna we're gonna temporarily deploy the National Guard until we build up the Border Patrol.
Well, the problem is that Bush is the reason we haven't built up the Border Patrol.
The Congress has authorized spending for 2,000 new agents, and the administration has only um uh asked for like 1,500 of them.
They they have not.
The administration has refused to fund all the available new positions or slots for border patrol agents that has been authorized by Congress, and you may have heard you know dingy Harry's running around all day today saying this.
And they were all over television yesterday.
Democrats saying, well, this is all well and good, but it's the president himself who hasn't, and they're and they're right about that.
Um the the the uh if these leaks are accurate, the guard will not be uh very strong.
The original number was 10,000, I think, that were proposed being out there, not nearly that many, and they will not be on the border guarding uh, which is what one of the spokesmen said on Fox this morning.
Uh point being that if you dilute the significance of the guard on the border, then what's the point of putting them there?
See, I I think that the the public is on to this now.
I don't think the public can be fooled uh by any of this.
And if if I mean I'm I'm serious a heart attack here, folks.
If if if we hear tonight a bunch of lines about uh how these great people coming in illegally do the work that Americans won't do, it's got to offend a lot of people.
Or if we hear we can't deport 12 million illegals, nobody's urging that be done.
Uh if it's if it's the same old uh same old lines, it's it's I don't know, folks.
Red flags are raised on this.
We'll just have to wait and see.
And again, if this is all predicated on these pre-speech leaks.
Yeah, we will uh we'll just see.
It's gonna be interesting juxtaposition because the president's gonna speak at 8 o'clock, and then there's all the networks have special editions of their regularly scheduled shows prior to the president, and then special editions of their regularly scheduled shows after the president's speech.
Um this is gonna be its own drive-by media event pre-and-post-speech.
But what's interesting to me is is that twenty-four will follow the president's speech at uh at nine o'clock Eastern on Fox.
So we'll hear uh the news leading up to this, we'll hear the president, we'll hear the aftermath, and then twenty-four will show us how all this should be done in the context of a fictional program.
Now, there's a story in the Washington Times today with it with an intriguing headline, reform bill to double immigration.
The immigration reform bill the Senate takes up today would more than double the flow of legal immigration into the U.S. each year and dramatically lower the skill level of those immigrants.
The number of extended family members that U.S. citizens or legal residents can bring into this country would double.
More dramatically, the number of workers and their immediate families could increase sevenfold if there are enough U.S. employers looking for cheap foreign labor.
Another provision would grant humanitarian visas to any woman or orphaned child anywhere in the world at risk of harm because of age or sex.
These little notice provisions are part of legislation co-sponsored by Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mel Martinez of Florida.
And there's been an in-depth analysis of this.
The Heritage Foundation has done one, and Senator Sessions.
Jeff Sessions of Alab of Alabama has uh done an analysis of this, a numerical impact study.
And it's as frightening stuff.
The uh the date of his uh release is put a press release up as a result of his studies today.
U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican Alabama, today unveiled an impact analysis that shows the Senate immigration bill, should it become law, would permit up to 217.1 million new legal immigrants into the U.S. over the next 20 years, a number equal to 66% of the total current population of the country.
Even if the maximum levels are not reached, the increase to the U.S. population caused by Senate Bill 2611 will be at least 78.7 million in 20 years, just over 25 percent of the total current population.
This lower estimate assumes that the bill's escalating caps on certain visas will not increase at all over the next 20 years.
If the bills' caps are hit every year, the total number will be the higher estimate.
Uh sessions said that until now, most of us have focused on securing the border and deciding how to treat the illegal alien population already in the U.S., but few, if any of us have looked ahead to see what the long-term numerical impact of the bill would be.
My staff and I have just completed such a study, and the results are shocking.
As we begin debate today on the floor, my goal is to get these numbers before my colleagues so they can appreciate just how breathtakingly unsatisfactory this 614-page Senate bill is.
We know that this country is going to treat the illegal alien population fairly.
However, if the Senate wants to be successful in passing immigration reform, it should produce a bill that secures the borders and the workplace and establishes a common sense, carefully thought-out, legally enforceable policy for legal immigration in the future.
I mean, these numbers are shocking.
The heritage uh analysis is uh is is pretty much uh I think it's heritage.
Is it heritage or am I confusing this in another story?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Heritage Foundation's uh several Senate lawyers have studied the bill since it uh it was proposed.
Uh and I can get into details after the uh break.
But essentially, the Hegel Martinez bill would make it considerably easier for unskilled workers to remain here permanently while keeping hurdles in place for skilled workers, and we have talked about that on this program.
We have talked about we do control immigration, and we do a damn good job of it.
And the areas that we control are high skilled, highly educated, technical, and professional uh immigrants.
We have it with a hard cap on that sixty-five thousand.
The bill would double this to a hundred and fifteen thousand, but the uh when you look at the total number of potential new immigrants, and by the way, the the term legal immigrants here, uh, in conjunction with this the number of two hundred and seventeen point one assumes that illegals will become legal.
That uh that they won't be deporting.
This is shocking uh stuff here.
And there are now people trying to call attention to this after having studied and reegel-martinez bill in um uh in some detail.
There are also arguments out there that uh uh the the real challenge here is to uh deal with illegal immigration uh when a in in a uh strictly interior sense rather than a border sense.
David Frum uh on his uh National Review Online blog uh makes this point.
So we got some audio soundbites to go with this as well.
We'll take a brief time out.
By the way, uh uh big day today, Alan Brothers Stakes officially joins the roster of official sponsors of the Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB network.
Uh their first award-winning commercial will pop up at twelve fifty-three Eastern time, about a half hour from now.
Uh and they they've put together a little introductory pack.
I've told you about the hot dogs, I've told you about all the other uh uh great items, uh, but they've put together an introductory pack called a rush pack that uh gives you a sample.
And there's no way a single pack could sample everything they had, but we've put together what we think is a pretty good representative sample of the absolute superior quality from Allen Brothers.
Uh they start today.
Their website is ABstakes.com, and we welcome them to the official roster of big time EIB sponsors.
We'll be back and continue right after this, folks.
Sit tight.
By the way, I intend to get to this later in the program.
There's a story that ran in the New York Times yesterday by Adam Nagorney called Hey Democrats, why win?
And it's talking about the House and or the Senate.
Well, now, you can sit out there and you can laugh about this.
Hey Democrats, why win?
But this is a story about the problems they could have if they win.
Now, you have to understand what the New York Times is.
New York Times is is uh uh they're like cheerleaders, and they give advice out there to the Democrats.
They also give us an indication of what they think is down the road.
I think this story has multiple components, but one of the components in this story is don't believe this notion of Democrats have it all locked up.
This sets the stage for explaining when they lose why that was a good strategy.
Uh details upcoming.
Let me give you the details that uh Jeff Sessions and his staff have come up with in analyzing this six hundred and fourteen-page immigration bill.
And by the way, folks, you know, this is not easy for me to say, but it was two years ago that I sounded the warnings on this.
This issue that if the Republican Party doesn't get its arms and hands around this issue in the right way, that they are going to be more vulnerable at election time than they can possibly imagine.
And And people email me, well, how did you know this, Rush?
You seem to know everything that's going to happen in politics.
It's very simple.
All it took, all it took was one trip to California for five days.
That's all it took.
I couldn't get away from the topic.
I couldn't go I couldn't get away from the anger, the conversation, the frustration uh from people from all walks of life.
Uh I and other parts go to Texas, the same thing if you go to the right parts of Texas.
And it was very simple to conclude what I was hearing from people who make the country work and people who vote was not being heard by people in Washington, and their frustration over that it wasn't hard to make this prediction.
This is just simply, you know, I'm in tune with you people.
I'm not an inside the belt, way elitist pointy head snob.
You know, I'm not out of touch with you people.
I am at one with you people.
And and I do it doesn't take and I, by the way, I thought there my independently there was a problem.
There's no question everybody knew there was a problem, but I didn't realize just how uh uh top drawer and emotional it had become with people who are directly impactful.
I mean, I'd followed Prop 187, and I knew what had happened with all that was making people mad, and I knew that uh the same thing's going on in Arizona, that was making people mad.
But until you go out and talk to these people that are directly affected by and then you find out that it's happening in the uh in in northern states as well and in the DC area in states like Virginia.
Uh I mean it's it's easy to put this together.
There's there's a story here.
I have a whole immigration stack today, and there's a story in there that uh experts and government officials are opposed to a new passport program at the Canadian border.
Um, this you know, w somebody's proposing passports as a post-9-11 security thing.
It's that's it's yes, it's the law.
It goes into a law, go yes, uh yeah, of course it's a law goes into effect 2008.
There's some people opposing this.
It it can complicate uh transfer back and forth transportation candidates, it's too much.
So uh some people still don't get it, but a lot of people uh do.
Now, here are the numbers.
The H2C workers, H2C visas, uh low-skilled permanent immigration, by creating a new H2C visa category for temporary guest workers with an annual cap of 325,000 that increases up to 20 percent every year the cap is met.
The bill allows at least six and a half million and up to sixty point seven million new quote unquote guest workers to come to the United States over the next twenty years.
There's nothing temporary about these workers.
Employers may file a green card application on their behalf as soon as they arrive in the U.S., or the worker may self-petition for a green card after four years of work.
Then there are the H4 family members of H2C workers by creating a new visa category, H4, for the immediate family members of the future low-skilled workers, this is H2C again, and allowing them to also receive green cards, the bill would allow at least 7.8 million and up to 72.8 million immediate family members of low-skilled workers to come to the U.S. over the next 20 years.
Now, the high-skilled and permanent immigration numbers, this is the H1B visa.
The uh the Martinez, the Hegel Martinez bill would essentially open the borders to high-skilled workers as well as low-skilled workers by increasing the annual cap from the uh present 65,000 up to 115,000, automatically increasing the new cap by 20 percent every year the cap is hit,
and creating a new exemption uh to new cap for everyone who has an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math from any foreign university, the number of H-1B workers coming into the U.S. would undoubtedly escalate.
The 20-year impact of this escalation could be anywhere from one million to twenty point one million.
H-1B workers are eligible for green cards and will be allowed to stay and work in the U.S. for as long as it takes to process the green card uh application.
So the one million to twenty million is still a much smaller range than the quote unquote illegals becoming guest workers.
They still are going to expand the uh permanent immigration numbers of high skilled uh and highly educated professional people who have uh oh advanced degrees from uh from foreign any uh any foreign university.
Now, that kind of immigration, I'll tell you who's behind that, and I I can understand this.
I mean, people in uh uh in the high tech businesses such as Silicon Valley and and uh and others have long said there aren't enough of these people that they can get their hands on it, and and it is said uh by critics of these uh Silicon Valley companies, yeah, yeah, they want these high-tech educated people, but they're foreigners who come in and they'll work for less two.
And so domestic engineers, high-tech grads, complain about this number.
So nobody ends up being happy over um over any of this.
Then you have to ask yourself a question.
You have to I I ask myself the question, and I don't have time to ask it before the break.
So the break will come, and I will ask you the question.
I'm sure you've been asking the same question of yourself.
Not of yourself, you've been asking yourself about your government back in just a second.
Didn't know that?
You didn't know that.
Well, what have you been doing?
Watching C-SPAN all weekend?
You gotta watch something besides C-SPAN if you want to stay up.
Snerdley didn't know that they found some DNA in the alleged rape victim in Durham, North Carolina was the boyfriends.
It's the boyfriend's deal, but they don't want to mention his name because they don't want to drag his name through the mud.
They can drag the lacrosse players' names through the mud for weeks, but they don't want to drag the boyfriend's name through the mud.
He's not a target of the investigation.
I'm reminded by this because the grand jury down there just wrapped up for the day and and uh the supposedly this third uh whatever is uh lacrosse player is gonna be uh indicted today.
And of course, a a single wacko kook blogger has the entire left-wing blogosphere believing that Rove is going to be indicted today.
Uh you ought to see the left-wing bloggers.
I mean, it is orgasm city out there, and it has been, it has been since uh since since Saturday.
At any rate, uh welcome back, folks, Rush Limboy here.
Uh half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Uh the question.
Something here just perplexes me all to hell.
On this immigration business, it isn't that hard to understand.
It is really not a complicated issue.
We have laws and we have limits.
Forget this new bill.
We have laws and we have limits on this uh on both legal and illegal immigration.
We're really riding herd on legal immigrants.
We are we're making sure that those numbers are held to.
But when it comes to illegal, uh our government is toying with us.
They know full well what the majority of the American people, uh a clear majority, think about this, and yet they're toying with us.
And the idea of a permanent low-paid underclass workforce seems to me to be what is desired.
And my question is, what do they know that we don't know?
You know, I often believe that there is a lot more known to what we know about anything we hear going on in Washington or anywhere else.
Uh we are we're fools if we think we've got our arms around everything going on.
We don't, and it's not possible to know.
There's some things we're not supposed to know.
Uh drive-by media is trying to get their hands on that stuff.
But I mean the collective thing, you put you look at people like Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez.
Now I don't know them.
But this it doesn't make any common sense.
The president's appeal on this and his thinking it doesn't make any common sense given the attitude of the American people and given what's happening culturally out there, and yet what the American people think on this as opposed to the Dubai Ports deal is is irrelevant.
It's it's this as though we have to be humored.
We have here, you know, uh this uh folks, this one this plan for citizenship for illegal aliens, it if it if it if it manifests itself in the numbers that Jeff Session's analysis of this new bill uh uh indicates.
What you're talking about the destruction of the Republican Party in fifty years.
The idea that we're gonna be able to turn these people into Republicans without a Reagan leader.
I mean, i i it may be possible if we had somebody willing to lead a movement nationally on conservatism uh that holds elective office, and we don't have that right now.
I don't know where this is coming from.
We're gonna try to woo these people as to to be Republicans by trying to out Democrat Democrats.
The National Guard.
I mean, you've got to actually send them down there and be a functioning border patrol would require a special act of Congress because right now that's against the law.
Posse comitatis.
You cannot do this.
So they're down there as window dressing.
They'll be down there for a few weeks.
They'll go home.
The border will be open as usual.
We keep hearing about this virtual fence.
Do we not?
We're going to construct a virtual fence now.
All right, well, we put a virtual fence around the Capitol building, and when we put a virtual fence around the White House, then I will believe virtual fences work.
Let them try to secure themselves that way.
Let them let them put a virtual fence around where they live and work.
And if it works, then fine, I'll be a believer.
But a virtual fence, come on.
What is this?
It it's it's as though that the the people involved in this think that they can make us feel good with certain, and again, uh I need to issue a caveat here.
My my concerns here are based strictly on leaks of what this speech is going to contain tonight.
Not and I would I want to tell you right now, I hope I'm wrong in my analysis of this, and I hope these leaks are diversions uh and are not uh are not accurate.
Uh I just don't I just do not understand uh this is one of these one of these times where I don't understand the the divide that exists between the people and their representatives.
Uh they clearly heard us they heard you uh when it came to the Dubai ports deal.
They didn't listen to me.
I'm used to that.
Uh but they heard you, and it's just as loud, and they'll tell you they're getting more uh reaction from the uh from constituents on this illegal immigration problem than they ever got on the Dubai port deal, and yet they're ignoring it.
And so I'm just wondering, what do they know that we don't know?
Is there some power council up there that's convening this we this country can't survive without a permanent underclass, low-paid workforce?
Is it what big time contributors are telling them that need need and they're not gonna get any money?
We know where the Democrats are.
The Democrats just look at these people that you have their their new victim parade, uh, their new civil rights move.
The Democrats are totally understandable on this.
Uh the Republicans are not understandable, and that's probably because the vast majority of them are not really acting as conservatives on this.
They're acting as country club blue blood Rockefeller Republicans, which successfully we banished from existence in terms of any power uh in the 1980s.
But they didn't like it.
They didn't like Reagan, they never did like Reagan.
Reagan was a hazy to hick, just like they think you are, like they think I am.
Uh so I again, I want to be wrong about this, but it's something that's just so incongruent that I'm asking myself, what do they know that we don't know?
Uh it could be another question.
What do they think of us that we're not aware of?
They think of us.
That's easy to answer if if they really think they can fool us on this and they think we're a bunch of idiots.
The only way they can think that is if they're not talking to us or listening to us.
They they could also think that we're a bunch of rubs and we don't really know what we're talking about.
Um, and then there might be uh uh a cadre or a segment of them that this is just a bunch of bigotry and racism, and this country's had a lot of it over the years, and they've been every every generation or two get crazy about immigration.
I've told you what my grandfather asked me once back in uh the early 90s, what's big on your talk show, son?
I said, uh, immigration's going nuts, people can't stand it, illegal immigration.
He laughs at the yeah, that was my debate topic in 1904 in high school.
Resolved that uh Southern European European immigration should be stopped because they're dirty, sweaty, stinky, and lazy.
That was the premise that he debated in his high school, back in 1904, 1905, whatever it was.
Uh so it's clearly an issue that has legs and it it it comes and goes, manifests itself in a number of different ways uh over the years, but uh the the difference back in the early 1900s to now is that we were talking about legal immigration, hello, uh you know, through Ellis Island and all of that, and there was acculturation And assimilation.
Uh there was now what are you what are you laughing at?
You think we're talking about illegal immigration back then?
Well, there were always been people le illegally trying to sneak in here, but uh then there's an answer.
There's a reason for that.
Why who wouldn't want to come here?
Who in their right mind would not want to be here?
Problem is we got a bunch of, you know, soft-hearted liberals.
Well, if somebody went to come to my country to improve themselves, I am not gonna stand there away, okay?
I am not gonna be father, race it big at home folk.
If some poor slob went to come in and prove himself in my country, then finally we got a lot of that.
Uh but I don't think that we had the numbers as a percentage of our workforce getting in illegally back then as we do now, because we haven't gotten a handle on this when we had a chance to.
And that's just it.
There doesn't seem to be any real effort to handle the illegal aspect.
What there seems to be, more than anything else, is an effort to wave a magic wand and say, hey, you want to come in?
Fine, we're gonna have some numbers, we're gonna limit them, but everybody gets in here, no matter how they get in, is gonna be considered legal.
We're gonna have these distinctions to who you are.
If you have no education, and if you're deadbeat and you have to come across the border in the under the cover of darkness, then we're gonna give you this kind of visa.
And you can go do that kind of work.
If you're highly educated, high tech, professional, master's degree or beyond, well, then we're gonna uh let you in under this other kind of visa, and we're gonna monitor you.
And uh and by the way, those of you sneaking across the border under cover of darkness, you find a way to get your family in it, probably welcome them too.
I was one folks steeped in logic, as one who tries to analyze things in a logical and non-emotional way.
This one I'm having trouble with.
Understanding what it is that I don't know that those in Washington making this decision do know that could possibly make me not see the whole picture.
Because it seems so simple that if you're not seeing a whole picture, you don't want to.
So if you factor in what we don't know, uh, which might be nothing, I'm just trying to make sense out of this.
Now, before we go to the break, I I must I must tell you that uh I've had two or three of these emails, and not going to mention any names, but but you people who have sent these emails know who you are, and you've hurt my feelings.
Now I know I try not to let this happen, but in some cases, even I drop the boundaries and the uh the slings and arrows get in.
Like, let me just give you an example, this email.
Dear Rush.
After hearing you rave about the Allen Brothers hot dogs, I purchased and sent my younger brother a case of them.
He's a serious hot dog aficionado.
He was thrilled.
He's an attorney who employs a secretary and another assistant.
Last Friday, he decided to conduct a blind hot dog taste test using his staff.
He went out and got some other hot dogs from Chicago, got some hot dogs from New York, and some other hot dogs from New York.
He grilled all four brands, he labeled them A, B, C and D, and made his employees pick the best one.
Sure enough, Alan Brothers hot dogs won.
You were right again.
Now you might be like, why does this hurt my feelings?
There's no need for a taste test, folks.
Once I tell you, it's over.
David Frum at National Review Online, among um many who are hitting the administration hard today on the upcoming speech tonight at his blog at uh National Review on a line.
Uh when the Bush administration fitfully attempts to enforce the immigration laws, it looks for measures that meet four criteria, he says.
Number one, they must be spectacular, number two, they must be expensive, number three must be unsustainable, and number four, ineffective.
The proposal to uh deploy the National Guard to the border meets all three.
This plan won't work.
It's not seriously meant to work.
It's supposed to look dramatic and buy the president some respite from negative polls, and then it's supposed to fail.
Strengthening the administration's case for its truly preferred approach, amnesty plus guest workers.
Uh if there's one truth about immigration that should have been learned since the last amnesty, it is this.
The immigration laws cannot be enforced at the border.
They have to be enforced in the interior space of the country, create an accessible, reliable system for employers to confirm the legal status of their employees, Require employers to use it, check compliance and punish cheaters.
That's what you have to do to enforce the law.
If if uh if you don't do that, you can send the National Guard to occupy Mexico City or dig a moat along the Rio Grande and fill it with man-eating alligators, and it won't matter.
Your enforcement will fail.
I don't I don't agree that you can't do border security.
I uh but I understand what he's saying about this uh uh business of you have to enforce the law in the interior.
Uh but I disagree that I I think you can shore up the border and and and make things happen.
But this this gets to the same question I had.
There's no desire for this to really work.
And you know, folks, this is the thing that we have to come to grips with.
There, if if you look at the Hegel, whatever it is, Hegel Martinez bill.
Look at that, there isn't a serious desire to fix this problem, and there hasn't been for I don't know how long up there on Capitol Hill.
And I ask myself, is it really nothing more than the fact that these people want votes and that they're afraid to offend members of groups who might be affected by tougher enforcement?
And you can conclude, yeah, because sometimes when you start looking for all the complicated answers, you get you get crazy.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is actually what it is.
Uh but there's no question there's fear here.
And it's that fear that we don't understand, because it's not the fear of us.
It's not the fear of citizens going to the polls and taking out their frustrations on incumbents.
No, that that fear doesn't seem to bother them.
It's the fear of what's going to happen to these illegals as they come in and become voters at some point, and who are they going to take it out on?
And also there may be fear of various contributors and who knows, but it obviously is uh is fear-based.
Let me grab a quick call here before we have to take a break.
Greg in Louisville, Kentucky.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi, Russ.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Well, I I think you touched on it when you talked about your grandfather.
I I just finished rereading Nelson and Rose Friedman's wonderful book, Free to Choose.
I'm sure you've probably read that or other things by him.
But this country did so much better when when we had open immigration, we didn't have a welfare state supporting immigrants, and that should be cut off now.
But back in the 1800s, when my ancestors came over, when the Limbaugh maybe came over, when Andrew Carnegie and Alexander Graham Bell came over, we did great when we had open borders, freedom, a little limited government.
And it's really unfortunate to me when we have people in the Republican Party that they want to have an INS agent behind every bush and every desk and checking on employers, and these people want to come over here and work hard.
Why don't we let them do it?
Cut all the way to the water.
Wait a minute.
No, no, no, wait, wait a second.
Wait a second.
I uh I can't believe that Milton Friedman, Milton Friedman, and his wife Rose would stand up today and say that they're all for illegal immigration as it's currently happening, because it has led to the creation of a welfare state because they end up being the targets of liberal Democrats as new victims.
And so it's impossible to have limited government or even to begin on that road, once once you stand by the notion that we can't stop this, or we've got to have them legal guest workers and so forth, plus they're so poor, they're gonna need some court of so social services.
This is rolling the society.
Let's ban it.
Let's ban public assistance immigrants, but have them work.
If they want to come here and work, don't get on welfare.
What's wrong with that?
That's a conservative value.
Uh it's not the way to solve the problem.
The way to solve the problem is stop giving them jobs.
If you if you're you know, th that's what's that's what's attracting them.
We're not even talking about immigration here, Greg.
That's the thing people need to remember.
What is currently happening now is not immigration.
Uh we don't we don't have these people coming in trying to become Americans.
I mean, some of them do.
There's no question, but the the vast majority of um uh of them are not.
And by the way, the Supreme Court, that was the Supreme Court, courts have ruled this is what Prop 187 was about.
They've already ruled that it's unconstitutional to ban welfare for illegal immigrants.
California tried to do it.
It's called Prop 187.
Federal judge, you can't do that.
Why, that's unconstitutional.
And so that just ratcheted up the uh the emotion uh even more.
All right.
Uh Greg, I appreciate the call.
Uh got a run coming up.
Uh, we're honored to welcome them, our first ever uh real commercial here for Allen Brothers stakes.
Uh and they're they're just they're they're and folks, you don't need to go do side-by-side taste tests.
It's an insult to me if you tell me you're gonna go do that.
You don't need to do it.
Yeah, we'll get to some audio sound bites on this.
Uh the drive-by media the way they're dealing with the president of speech tonight is kind of comical too.
Uh Bob Sheefer asking if the National Guard's gonna be firing on illegal immigrants and killing them.
Uh folks, I say this on occasion now and then, just don't doubt me.
He she Schieffer said I've got the sound but uh the National Guard can be firing on illegal immigrants.
I think you're not conjures up that kind of a picture.
▲
Export Selection